Kitap 41
24
"Now we know that on receiving the crown Perseus was recognised as king by the Roman people; we hear that Roman ambassadors visited the king and were graciously received by him. In my judgment, this points to peace and not to war, nor can the Romans possibly be offended if, as we followed their lead in war, so now we follow them as the authors of peace. I do not see why we alone in all the world should wage a relentless war against the kingdom of Macedonia. Are we so near it as to be open to attack? Are we like the Dolopes, who are the weakest of all the nations that he has subdued? No, quite the contrary. Whether it is through our own strength or through the favour of heaven or owing to the distance which separates us, in any case we are safe. But suppose we lay as open to invasion as the Thessalians and the Aetolians, have we no more interest with the Romans, no stronger claim upon them than the Aetolians, who were not long ago in arms against them, while we have always been their friends and allies? Whatever reciprocal rights exist between the Macedonians and the Aetolians, Thessalians and Epirotes, in fact the whole of Greece, let us also enjoy. Why does this abominable interference with the common rights of humanity exist for us alone? Granting that Philip did something which caused us to make this decree against him when he was in arms and engaged in war, what has Perseus, new to the throne, guiltless of any wrong towards us, effacing by his kindness the enmity aroused against his father-what has Perseus done to make us, alone of all nations, his enemies? I might also urge this point, that the services which the former kings of Macedonia have rendered us have been so great that the injury which Philip has done to us, however great it was, should be forgotten, especially now that he is dead. You know that when the Roman fleet was lying at Cenchreae and the consul with his army was at Elatia, we were assembled in council to decide whether we should follow Philip or the Romans, and the discussion lasted three days. Even if the pressure of immediate danger in no way alienated our feelings from the Romans, there must have been something at least to make our deliberations so lengthy, and this was our long-standing union of interests with Macedonia and the great services which her kings have for many years rendered to us. Let these same motives weigh with us now, not to make us especially his friends, but to prevent us from being especially his enemies. Do not let us make a presence, Callicrates, of seriously discussing a proposal which nobody has brought forward. No one suggests that we should form fresh alliances or draw up a new treaty so as to fetter ourselves with obligations thoughtlessly incurred. Let there be free intercourse between us, a mutual recognition of reciprocal rights; let us not, by closing our own frontiers, shut ourselves off at the same time from the king's dominions; let it not be possible for our runaway slaves to find shelter anywhere. What is there in all this that conflicts with the terms of our treaty with Rome? Why do we make so much of a little matter and throw suspicion upon what is simple and straightforward? Why do we raise such troubles out of nothing? Why do we make others mistrusted and suspected in order that we ourselves may be free to flatter the Romans? If there is to be war, even Perseus himself entertains no doubt as to our taking the side of Rome. As long as there is peace, let all hostile feelings be suppressed, even if they are not dispelled." Those who had approved of the king's letter were in full agreement with this speech. The leaders were indignant at Perseus not thinking the matter important enough for formal negotiation and making his demand in the few lines of a letter. The discussion was adjourned and no decree was made. Subsequently envoys were sent by the king whilst the council was in session at Megalopolis, and those who feared a breach with Rome took steps to prevent their admission to the council.
